Recommended
Updated SeminarLis Regula
Spider mite control in vegetables 2013Ayanava Majumdar (Dr. A), Alabama Cooperative Extension System
Key Species Responses - CLLAMMecology technical briefingUniversity of Adelaide
Tyrosinase inhibitory activity of ethanol extracts from medicinNguyen Vinh
Methyl parathion hydrolaseanku00009
Horsesphilq
Sigma xi 2013
- 1. Invasive plants and Native anurans A tale of two interactions 1
- 2. Amphibian declines • ~7000 spp. • ~1/3 threatened • ~160 presumed extinct recent times 2
- 3. Why? Habitat loss/degradation 3
- 4. Loss vs. Degradation 4
- 5. Invasive plants • 4,000+ non-native plants outside cultivation • 79 plants cost US $97B per year • Contribute to nearly half of threatened native spp. 5
- 6. But…what do plants have to do with frogs? Physical structure Invasive plants (Water) (Invertebrate) Chemistry Community 6
- 7. Invasive plants Phragmites australis Typha angustifolia 7
- 8. Three basic questions • Are there differences in water quality among invaded and non-invaded wetlands? • If there are differences, do they affect the growth and survivorship of tadpoles? • Do invasive plants affect the behavior of adult frogs? 8
- 9. Hypothesis 1 methods • Natural wetlands- 2007, 2008, 2011 – Tested weekly over summer – P. australis, T. angustifolia, non-invaded (doubly invaded in 2007) – LabPro datalogger 9
- 10. Water quality Typha angustifolia 1 Phragmites australis 0.9 Non-invaded 0.8 Doubly invaded Ammonium (mg/L) 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Ammonium 10
- 11. Water quality Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 7.5 Non-invaded 7 Doubly invaded Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Dissolved Oxygen 11
- 12. Water quality Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis Non-invaded 0.7 Doubly invaded 0.6 Nitrate (mg/L) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Weeks Nitrate 12
- 13. Water quality 30 25 Temperature (Celsius) 20 15 Typha angustifolia 10 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Weeks Temperature (2008) 13
- 14. Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates clamitans 14
- 15. Larval growth and survival • Natural wetlands- 2008, 2011 – Tested weekly over summer – P. australis, T. angustifolia, non-invaded – Small enclosures with separate individuals 15
- 16. 16
- 17. Larval survival 35 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis Individuals per enclosure 30 Non-invaded 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 14 14 15 16 18 18 19 21 21 23 24 25 16 17 20 22 23 25 26 Day of Year Survival 17
- 18. Larval length: 35 Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 30 Non-invaded 25 Length (mm) 20 15 10 5 0 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 14 14 15 17 18 18 21 21 23 24 26 16 16 19 20 22 23 25 25 Day of Year Length 18
- 19. Adult behavior • Adult behavior arenas • Stem density mimicking natural setting • Acclimation 15 minutes • 15 minute trial • Rest • Repeat with all plants 19
- 20. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 12.00 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 10.00 N Total time moving 8.00 6.00 P 4.00 T 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 20
- 21. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12 Non-invaded 10 Number of movements 8 N 6 P 4 T 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans Lithobates clamitans 21
- 22. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 12.00 Phragmites australis Non-invaded 10.00 N Total time moving 8.00 6.00 P 4.00 T 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbieanus Lithobates catesbeianus 22
- 23. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia Phragmites australis 12 Non-invaded 10 Number of movements 8 N 6 P 4 T 2 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates catesbeianus 23
- 24. Hypothesis 3 results Typha angustifolia 8 Phragmites australis 7 Non-invaded Number of "hang-ups" 6 5 4 P 3 T 2 N 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates catesbeianus 24
- 25. Typha angustifolia 16.00 Phragmites australis 14.00 Non-invaded 12.00 N 10.00 Total distance 8.00 P 6.00 T 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 Individual Lithobates clamitans 25
- 26. Typha angustifolia 18.00 Phragmites australis 16.00 Non-invaded 14.00 12.00 N Total distance 10.00 8.00 P 6.00 T 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Individual Lithobates catesbeianus 26
- 27. Acknowledgements • Advisors- Oscar Rocha, Mark Kershner • Committee- Ferenc de Szalay, Marilyn Norconk, Allison Smith • Funding- Graduate Student Senate, Kent Environmental Council, Ohio Biological Survey, Ohio Native Plant Society, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 27
Editor's Notes
- “Focusing” slide- dump prior to presentation
- Introduction- Frog declines, habitat loss/degradation, chytrid, etc.
- Habitat loss/degradation as factor in species loss
- Invasive plants as a form of habitat loss/degradation- explain what is habitat degradation, no net loss wetland policies,
- Interactions and possible interactions of invasive plants, divide this into separated animation sequence, summarize
- Discuss Commelinid ecology
- I would address one question at a time. Describe the methodology and summarize your results
- Start with 2007, 2008, skip other parts. Start with chemical differences,
- You may need to talk about your complexes here, before you show your data. Make sure you mention the analyses of variance that you did here.
- Discuss Rana ecology
- Repeat changes from water quality slide. Add slide with methods. Add picture of tadpole bar.
- Transition to next slide
- Do you have pictures of your arenas? Digging some up somewhere… (I take far too many photos)
- Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
- Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
- Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
- Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.
- Your X axis needs to be corrected. I would a different graph to show these results (see above). What does your analysis of variance indicates: no significant differences.